A Tale of Two Hermes: How a Turkish Bookshop Defended Its Name Against a Luxury Giant

This article is authored by Shivanshi Sarwang, second year B.B.A., LL.B. (Hon’s) student at the University of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU.

Introduction

In the bustling Turkish seaside city of Izmir, a tiny bookseller called Hermes is waging a high-stakes war against the French luxury fashion heavyweight Hermès Paris. The dispute, concluded in August 2024, is a fine illustration of the tension between local businesses’ cultural legacy and global corporate trademark enforcement. At stake is the question: Could a multinational company come to lay claim to a name that has been in use for hundreds of years?


Background of Case

Named after the Greek god Hermes, who was associated with the history of the area, the bookshop has been in business in Izmir for 15 years, and is owned by Umit Nar.

Hermès Paris: Maker of the well-known Birkin bags and global fashion empire, the French luxury company also publishes (e.g., via its magazine Le Monde d’Hermès). It has trademarks in various categories for “Hermès”.

The Legislation at Issue

The case was based primarily on the international norms within the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and Turkish IP Law (No. 6769). Essential clauses included:

Under Article 6/1: registration of a trademark is prohibited “if it istrade mark which is identical with or indistinguishably similar to a trade mark which is well known in the country in respect of dissimilar or different goods or services”; this would be so, even in unrelated fields, if the existing mark has a “reputation” in Turkey.

Article 7/1 : Prohibits trademarks that contain historical symbols or icons without just cause.

While Nar used Article 7/1, argued that “Hermes” is part of the common cultural heritage of mankind and not the proprietary creation of any one enterprise being a business organization, Hermès Paris relied on its worldwide reputation to claim “reputation” under Article 6/1.

Analysis of the Case

  1. Three critical assessments served as the foundation for the Ankara court’s ruling:
    1. Likelihood of Confusion: There was no evidence of actual confusion among consumers during a 15-year period, even though Hermès Paris is well-known internationally. The store was the antithesis of the French behemoth — small and local with no luxury branding.
  2.  Cultural vs. Commercial Significance: The court recognized that “Hermes” was both a mythological and commercial term. Nar’s use was not motivated by profit-driven branding, but rather by Izmir’s historic identity. This was in line under article 7/1, which gives cultural preservation as in the public interest precedence of company monopolies.
  3. Hermès Paris’s “Reputation” Claim: Despite the fact that this brand is known worldwide for its luxury products, their publishing activities (a specialized magazine, for example) were not sufficiently known in Turkey to lend exclusivity.The claim that all industries, including unrelated ones, are protected by trademarks was dismissed by the court.

Crucially, the ruling recognized that trademark law needs to change to accommodate situations in which names become part of collective heritage and go beyond commerce.

Verdict

On 16 August 2024, the Ankara Court handed down a decision considering fairly and favourably in favour of Hermes Bookshop in the fight against Hermès Paris. The court ruled in favor of Umit Nar, allowing him to continue to operate his community-based bookshop under the name “Hermes.” It found no proof of customers mixing up the globally renowned French luxury brand and the small, counter-culture bookstore in Izmir. Given in particular Izmir’s ancient Greek roots, the Court held that the name “Hermes” had “cultural-historical significance” and concluded that Nar’s use of the name of “Hermes” was “innocent,” and was not used “to grab the benefit of the fame of [Hermès – Paris].”

Those can still use it retained the right, but although the court declined, he also asked her for a “Hermes” as brand insert alone. That means he doesn’t have exclusive legal rights to the name — even if he can use it in his firm.Hermès Paris would still be in a position to argue against any future Nar attempts to further expand his trademark rights, particularly if that included products closer to the French brand, such as publishing or fashion.

Finally, the court emphasized that well-known international brands cannot monopolize names shared under common cultural or historical traditions. The interest of the public has to be balanced with the protection of trademarks, and as such each case must be considered taking into account the specific cultural and commercial context. The decision also highlights the fact that intellectual property rights must necessarily coexist with cultural heritage, and as such is an important decision in the recent Turkish trademark law precedent.

Conclusion

The Hermes Bookshop is a cultural heritage win in an era of corporate trademark expansionism. It notes that historical and geographical importance can trump economic arguments, in cases where no harm has been caused to the consumer. The decision is a wake-up call for world-renowned luxury businesses like Hermès Paris: no famous mark can fully efface the common heritage. This offers small companies a road map to pin their conflicts to the needs and identity of communities in their battle with corporate giants.

Ultimately, the case underscores a maturing school of thought that standings should learn to peacefully coexist with mankind’s intangible heritage as opposed to being merely instruments of business. And this decision is a further reminder that some names should remain in the annals of history, and not be adopted in boardrooms across the globe as global multinationals spin out of control.

References

Fashion Law

Leave a comment